Hi Jerome, I think this is a necessary step to encourage a healthy FOSS development model around targetcli, to foster increased usage and development of the main body of code -- in the Linux kernel. Just as it's clear that RTS's decision to contribute the kernel target code (LIO) has benefited both the community and RTS, I hope it's also clear that RTS can benefit from engaging in community-driven targetcli development. Regards -- Andy On 12/06/2011 02:17 PM, Jerome Martin wrote: > [Resent to list as plain text] > > Hi Andy, > > As you can imagine, we are quite surprised and disappointed by your > decision to fork targetcli. We tried supporting and accommodating you > to the very best of our abilities, and you reciprocated by just > forking and actively soliciting the target-devel community for > contributions without much of a warning. > > You claim that making contributions to targetcli (which is available > under the AGPLv3) under the MIT license or by signing a simple CLA > would be “against the spirit of free software.” > > We explained to you that we need the flexibility to use contributions > under our free software licensing terms, so that our intellectual > property position doesn’t become too complicated. As a company, we > have made the decision to make intellectual property that took us > considerable expense available for free to the community, and we want > to make sure our resources are devoted to making our products the best > they can be, rather than fighting legal battles over contributions. > > To that end, we simply ask to make contributions under the MIT > license, or, alternatively, agree to co-ownership of the > contributions, or, if that is not possible, get an unrestricted > license to the contributions. This way: > > * Everyone can continue to use their own code freely; > * Everyone owns their own enhancements to their code; > * We guarantee that contributions get released as open source software, and > * We are not asking for a copyright assignment. > > Now, let’s compare our fairly liberal contribution terms to some of > the more prominent terms of your own employer, Red Hat: > > * Fedora: Contributions require signing the “Fedora Project > Contributor Agreement” (FPCA), which allows code contributions under a > number of “acceptable licenses”, the default license being the MIT > license, see [1]. Effectively, Red Hat reserves the right to relicense > any code submitted under the “default license” to any of the “Good > Licenses”, including the AGPLv3, see [2]. This is similar to our > terms, but more restrictive in that Red Hat doesn’t allow co-ownership > or retained ownership of enhancements, and doesn’t guarantee that the > contribution will be released at all. > > * JBOSS: Contributions require signing a “Contributor License > Agreement” (CLA), which assigns all rights, including the copyrights, > to Red Hat, and expressly grants Red Hat the right to sell the > contribution, see [3]. There is no concept of shared or retained > ownership – all rights are fully assigned to Red Hat. Besides, this > CLA isn’t legal in Europe, as copyrights are not transferrable there > (except by heritage). > > * Alfresco: Contributions require signing a “Standard Contribution > Agreement”, which allows Red Hat, at their sole discretion, to > relicense the contribution under their “free software licensing terms, > other terms they may use in the future, or commercial terms,” (!) see > [4]. Obviously, this is much more restrictive than our terms. > > * Cygwin: Contributions require signing an “Assignment Contract” that > provides the transfer of the contributors “entire rights, title and > interest (including all rights under copyright), including “any future > revisions of these changes and enhancements,” (!) to Red Hat, see [5]. > Obviously, this is much more restrictive than our terms, and it isn’t > legal in Europe (where copyrights are not transferrable). > > I could probably keep expanding the list… > > To summarize, your arguments are inconsistent with some of your > employer’s, Red Hat, most prominent own open source contribution > terms. It eludes me how you can find our liberal contribution terms to > be “against the spirit of free software”, while you seem fine with > your employer’s considerably more restrictive terms. In fact, Red > Hat’s more restrictive terms make you look hypocritical, and your > action appears as an aggressive move of a large company to undermine a > small startup that has been making significant contributions to Linux. > We’d love to continue to provide great open source software, but we > can’t do so if you have us worry about future legal complications. > > Please kindly explain why you’re concerned with our liberal > contribution terms (either MIT license or co-ownership), while you’re > fine with your employer’s more restrictive terms (including mandatory > CLAs, relicensing under e.g. the AGPLv3 or some unspecified commercial > license, copyright assignments that are illegal in Europe, sole > ownership of all future changes, etc.). > > Thanks, > -- > Jerome > > > [1] Fedora Project Contributor Agreement, Fedora wiki, > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement > [2] Fedora Licensing, section “Good licenses,” Fedora wiki, > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses > [3] JBOSS Software Contributor Agreement, only available with a login, > https://cla.jboss.org/contributions/sign.seam?cid=804 > [4] Source Code page, Alfresco wiki, http://wiki.alfresco.com/wiki/Source_Code > [5] Cygwin copyright assignment form, Cygwin web site, > http://cygwin.com/assign.txt > > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Andy Grover <agrover@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Unlike the kernel target code, RTS has stated a policy of requiring >> contributions to their userspace tools to be either under CLA, or MIT >> license[1]. This is so RTS can incorporate the contributions into their >> proprietary version. Meanwhile, RTS licenses targetcli and friends under >> the AGPLv3[2]. >> >> I'm not willing to contribute code under those terms. I'll do AGPL if >> the code is AGPL, or I'll even do MIT if everyone else agrees to MIT >> licensing, but I won't agree to MIT when you are using AGPL, and I don't >> think anyone else should agree, either. It's against the spirit of free >> software. >> >> Therefore, I have made updated targetcli, rtslib, and configshell repos >> available here: >> >> https://github.com/agrover/targetcli-fb >> https://github.com/agrover/rtslib-fb >> https://github.com/agrover/configshell-fb >> >> fb stands for "free branch". >> >> These will track RTS's repos, and will also accept contributions from >> others, without CLA, under the AGPLv3. I invite all developers with an >> interest in this area (and a basic knowledge of Python) to contribute! >> You can also help out by submitting bug reports via Github issue >> tracking. Mailing list TBD but target-devel for now. >> >> These new repos will be the basis for future Fedora packaging of >> targetcli, and I plan to be aggressive in updating rawhide. >> >> Regards -- Andy >> >> [1] http://www.linux-iscsi.org/wiki/Contributing >> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > -- > Jérôme Martin > > > > -- > Jérôme Martin > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
